On 2012/08/25 17:47 (GMT-0400) James Knott composed:
Felix Miata wrote:
If I was running the FCC the name assigned to the number would be absolutely required unless the caller's ancient technology prevented even the number from being displayed, IOW, callerid would be all or nothing, and those without could be blocked with a messages saying why. You wouldn't answer your door if the person was wearing a mask, would you?
What about that woman's shelter I mentioned, where that number might be used to help someone find a woman they're abusing? What about other situations where confidentiality might be desired, such as when a guy calls home from a bar and tells his wife he's at work? ;-)
I didn't say what I really meant. I have no problem with per call blocking of both name and number or private or unpublished numbers. My problem is with nameless numbers. If there was a way I would block all calls that don't provide both from even ringing my phone. Only about one in 15 incoming calls here are not pure annoyances. Without the do not call list it would probably be 1 in 30. Most that are not wrong numbers, which themselves number roughly half, seem to come from beggars and politikers, the rest from DNCL violations. -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org